Socreds prevail over
GVRD in transit pact

By FRED WILSON

After ten months of negotiations,
the provincial government and
Greater Vancouver Regional
District have come to terms over the
financing and running of the public
transit system in the Lower
Mainland.

The terms, however, are the
Socred’s, requiring only a few
minor amendments to the regula-
tions set by cabinet to pave the way
for the Urban Transit Authority to
take over public transit in Greater
Vancouver.

It was Originally planned that the
UTA, the agency created by the
Socreds to dump the costs of the
transit system on to local taxpayers
while retaining important decision
making in the hands of the cabinet,
would take over the system last
April.

But the GVRD, in effect, went on
strike and refused to sign the agree-
ment which would have designated
it as a ‘“‘transit municipality’? — a
Socred euphemism for tax collec-
tor.

With the exception of Vancouver
mayor Jack Volrich, who sold out
for a provincial appointment as’
chairman of the UTA, and three of
his NPA cronies from Vancouver,
the GVRD stood firm. They would
not sign until the Socreds agreed to
give the GVRD direct control over
the transit system in the region, and
until a better financing formula was

worked out which would guarantee

that property taxes would not be us- .

ed to pay transit deficits.

This was a strike entirely in the
public interest, saving local tax-
payers millions of dollars. The $60
million deficit for 1979 will be paid
by B.C. Hydro, as in past years, out
of its enormous profits from the
sale of gas and electricity.

When the GVRD transportation
committee chairman Ian Young
brought the proposed agreement to
the GVRD last Wednesday, he
could report one concession from

ANALYSIS

the province. There would be no
“‘commission’’ appointed to run the
system; instead, the GVRD would
have the responsibility to establish
the general levels of service and
fares, and to work out a transit ser-
vice plan for the region.

But on the economics of the tran-
sit system, the money issues which
set absolute limits on what the
GVRD can plan, it was like the
chairman of the negotiating com-
mittee coming to the membership
after a six month strike with a
unanimous recommendation to ac-
cept the employer’s first offer, with
a few face-saving changes.

The Socreds had originally writ-
ten into the regulations that the
growing transit deficit would be

y friends, fellow staff workers

d family members filled the
Tribune offices: last week to pay
tribute to Dorothy Vint who had to
Jeave the staff earlier this year. In
her capacity as bookkeeper,
Dorothy had managed for seven
years to find order in the Tribune’s
finances which were often chaotic

and nearly always precarious.

The staff presented her with a
framed print by Canadian artist
Daphne Odjig inscribed with the
words: ‘“‘Though her name may
not have been on the Tribune
masthead, her contribution to the
working class press in British Col-
umbia has been immeasurable.”’

_ Although Dorothy faces a conti-
nuing — and we fervently hope a
successful-fight with cancer, she
told the gathering that she fully in-
tended to de what she could for the
paper, perhaps joining the crew of
mailers in the near future.
* * *

EE. since the proclamation of

the International Year of the
Child, our Socred provincial
government has been proclaiming
itself the guardian of family life and
every under-privileged child in the
province.

With nearly 70,000 children in
B.C. supported by social assistance,
at rates well below the poverty line,
the utter hypocrisy of the Socred’s
sanctimonious stand has been pro-
tested more than once. 4

A recent such protest, from
Downtown Eastside Residents
Association president Bruce
Eriksen, who pressed the point at
the Socred’s IYC Awards Dinner
two weeks ago in the Vancouver
Hotel, was brushed off with usual
curtness by Socred human resources
minister Grace McCarthy.

Commenting to a Vancouver Sun
reporter, McCarthy said that her
ministry ‘‘looks after every needy
child”’ and that ‘‘Mr. Eriksen’s pro-
testations don’t usually deserve any
comment.”’

This week, however, a most
unlikely source backed up Eriksen’s

contention, obvious to almost
everyone, that there are in fact
thousands of needy children in the
province, virtually ignored by the
provincial government.

Monday, Eriksen received a letter
from CKNW Orphan’s Fund direc-
tor Hal Davis containing the Fund’s
annual appeal for Christmas dona-
tions. ‘“‘Every year more children
seem to require the help provided
by the Fund,”’ he said. ‘‘This past
year almost $275,000 was spent to
help our underprivileged and han-
dicapped children, an increase of 25
percent over last year . . . the ever
increasing need for help is met by
the Orphan’s Fund through your
generosity.”’

* ~ *

he Veterans of the Mackenzie-
Papineau Battalion lost one of
their ablest and most conscientious
associate members Saturday with
the passing of Ethel Norris. She
died suddenly in hospital, only

hours after being admitted.

Although born in North Dakota,
she spend most of her life in this
country and together, with her hus-
band Len, himself a Mackenzie
Papineau Battalion veteran,
devoted most of her last years to
maintaining the veterans’ organiza-
tion and continuing their campaign
for official recognition.

Although not herself a veteran
she was an executive member of the
association and for many years had
organized their well known annual
reunions. She had also spent many
years compiling ‘an elaborate
photographic record of the veterans
work that was still incomplete.

Fittingly, she marked her 7Ist
birthday, Sept. 8, in Spain during
the Mac-Paps’ return to the towns
and battlefields where they had
fought 40 years before.

A member of the Communist
Party, she served as treasurer of the
White Rock Club until her death.

A memorial service is to be held
and Len assured us that her many
friends would be notified when a
date has been set.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE— OCTOBER 12, 1979—Page 2
eT ERA a Vee Se See SO Ce

split 75 percent by the province and
25 per cent by the GVRD in the first
year, sliding to 60-40 in the last year
of a five year agreement. The
GVRD demanded that the cost
sharing slide only to 70-30. As it
turns out, it will slide to 66 2/3 per-
cent for the province and 33% per-
cent for the GVRD in the fourth
and fifth years.

The Socreds had originally allow-
ed for the GVRD to raise its share
of the deficit through three new
taxes: a .7 cents per litre, or 3 cents
per gallon gasoline tax; an electric
power surcharge of 24 cents per
month, and a property tax with a
mill rate sufficient to raise what was
needed after the first taxes were us-
ed up. The proposed agreement is
exactly as above, with one change.
The Socreds have agreed to escalate
the gasoline tax and power sur-
charge by 10 percent per year. By
1984 the gas tax will be 4.8 cents per
gallon and the power surcharge will
be $1.01.

’ The GVRD is saying that with the

escalator clause it will not be
necessary to use property taxes.
That is a far from certain outcome,
however, as evidenced by the
GVRD’s own figures.

In his report Wednesday Young
estimated the net transit deficit
would rise to $100 million by 1984
-85, of which $33 million would be
paid by the GVRD. It just so hap-
pened that the estimated revenue
from the gas tax and power sur-
charge also added up to $33 million.
(see table 1).

With an idyllic set of figures like
that, forecast over five years, there
is obviously a.considerable amount
of wishful thinking built in. And in
this case some hard facts, known to
the GVRD, have been left out in
order to make their sweetheart deal
with the province look better than it
really is.

One year ago, in October 1978,
the GVRD staff presented a set of
projections on transit deficits to the
GVRD directors. The figures were
given as a range, from the lowest to
highest that may be reasonably ex-
pected. The comparison with
Young’s figures are sobering (see
table 2).

Only one year ago the GVRD’s
lowest estimated range for the tran-
sit deficit was considerably higher
than their current estimations. And
the highest range from a year ago is
a full 80 percent above the GVRD’s
current projection for 1983/84.

nae

The Sur

meeting, said that the organization hopes to field more candidates

Herein lies the death trap for the
transit system set by the first UTA
proposals, the same trap which the

GVRD is now trying to cover up.

before stumbling into it.

Greater Vancouver could face the
same fate that John Sewell warned
of in the recent Toronto election:
the danger that the transit system
could bankrupt the municipality.

As the costs go up, so will fares.
The farebox will remain as the

taxes down, it can raise fares and |
cut services. a
All of this, of course, is for the
present bus system only, not rapid |
transit. And if a rapid transit system -
is built, the GVRD estimates that it
will add another $23 to $29 million |
per year in capital costs. (Under the |
UTA Act the Socreds will force the -
GVRD to borrow the money fof |
rapid transit, thereby greatly in-_
creasing the costs). =

SS

1980/81 1981/82
NET DEFICIT $66M $70M
GASTAX  $14.1IM_ $15.8M
POWER
SURCHARGE $2.4M  $3.7M

TABLE 1 — ESTIMATED DEFICITS AND REVENUE

1984/85] |

1982/83 1983/84

$783M —«-$89M_—=«-—s«S100M4._
GVRD’S SHARE: $33.3M| |

$17.7M _$19.8M__$22.1M] |

$s7M $9.9M_——~SIIL2M

GVRD REVENUE: $33.3M] |

1980/81
NET DEFICIT (LOW) $71M
NET DEFICIT (HIGH) $108M

TABLE 2 — ESTIMATED DEFICITS OCT/78 e
1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85} |

$90M =.
160M —i

$77M
$120M

$83M
-$140M

Socred’s originally intended at 35 _

percent of operating costs, and
operating costs are going up 12 to
14 percent per year.

The Socred’s ‘‘concession’’ to
allow the GVRD to establish levels
of transit service and fares doesn’t
really leave the GVRD many op-
tions. It can maintain service levels
and keep fares down if it imposes
property taxes or finds large
amounts of money to put into the
system. Or, in the name of holding

Hae

By any standard, the GVRD |
came out on the short end of the
negotiations with the Socreds. If a
cepted by municipal councils in thé |
region it will mean an escalatin®
gasoline and hydro tax adding ©

the cost of living, an almost certail |

increase in property taxes, and cel | —
tain increases in transit fares. A
financial crisis of large proportio! 4
looms in the near future, whi? |
could seriously impair, if 1
destroy, the whole system.

rey Alternative Movement (SAM) fielded four candidates for the November 17 municipal ale
tion in Surrey with the nomination of three aldermanic and one school board candidates. Aldermat |
candidates endorsed by SAM’s nominating meeting last Wednesday were veteran campaigner a
Lennox (far right) and newcomers Rob White (second right) and Ken Rouble (far left). Norm pybvig |:
cond left) was the school candidate. SAM president Kostyn Gidora, also re-elected by the nomi
before nominations close. —

Pat ee Sc

5 i a!

aq